Tweet
HFO Capital v Roland Wegmuller
Important Notes:
I'm pleased to announce that the following victory was a result of our forum, our preferred solicitor and the forum user that came to us with the problem in the first place, who for the purposes of discretion shall remain anonymous here unless they decide to confirm who they are. This resulted in not only some new case law surrounding unenforceability but also details how to royally screw the DCA's with costs.
Ok, so first things first.
We are lucky in that Paul (preferred solicitor) and the defendant in the case have agreed that we, allaboutFORUMS, can have exclusive access to the judgment thus you'll find our watermark all over it. Please though, feel free to post it on other forums and let other forums know about this huge victory and then maybe they'll realise exactly why blanking our name out is futile if they ever want to get hold of the latest cases that are won via our preferred solicitor as all transcripts will be watermarked with our name.
Paul, Roland & all involved in this case - well done.
Ok so the case. This was a £7k Barclaycard debt that was sold to HFO who decided to start action so they are the claimant. They basically sent a copy of the agreement with recon terms.
At court the judge found that indeed, the whole thing was unenforceable based on a couple of things;
1. The witness statement provided by the defendant and
2. The fact that Barclays did not even have relevant terms etc from that time anyway
So, bottom line here was the judge ruled this unenforceable as a result of the lender failing to provide terms at the time of signature - it was proven via the witness statement that the defendant applied for the card by cutting out a part of a magazine and confirmed no terms (prescribed terms) were within this - as confirmed by the copy agreement held.
They lost. The judge ruled in our favour and that was another consumer victory.
Now, that covers the first couple of pages but what's funny here is the costs. That goes on for some 14 pages (approx) and the bottom line of this is had HFO not bullied the defendant into a corner, they'd be £7k better off and not (wait for it) - £50k worse off
The moral of this story is don't try and bully the wee man as the wee man always packs a bigger punch. Suckers!
What was a £7k debt owed to them now sits at £50k owed BY them.
Well done to all involved - happy reading!
I'm pleased to announce that the following victory was a result of our forum, our preferred solicitor and the forum user that came to us with the problem in the first place, who for the purposes of discretion shall remain anonymous here unless they decide to confirm who they are. This resulted in not only some new case law surrounding unenforceability but also details how to royally screw the DCA's with costs.
Ok, so first things first.
We are lucky in that Paul (preferred solicitor) and the defendant in the case have agreed that we, allaboutFORUMS, can have exclusive access to the judgment thus you'll find our watermark all over it. Please though, feel free to post it on other forums and let other forums know about this huge victory and then maybe they'll realise exactly why blanking our name out is futile if they ever want to get hold of the latest cases that are won via our preferred solicitor as all transcripts will be watermarked with our name.
Paul, Roland & all involved in this case - well done.
Ok so the case. This was a £7k Barclaycard debt that was sold to HFO who decided to start action so they are the claimant. They basically sent a copy of the agreement with recon terms.
At court the judge found that indeed, the whole thing was unenforceable based on a couple of things;
1. The witness statement provided by the defendant and
2. The fact that Barclays did not even have relevant terms etc from that time anyway
So, bottom line here was the judge ruled this unenforceable as a result of the lender failing to provide terms at the time of signature - it was proven via the witness statement that the defendant applied for the card by cutting out a part of a magazine and confirmed no terms (prescribed terms) were within this - as confirmed by the copy agreement held.
They lost. The judge ruled in our favour and that was another consumer victory.
Now, that covers the first couple of pages but what's funny here is the costs. That goes on for some 14 pages (approx) and the bottom line of this is had HFO not bullied the defendant into a corner, they'd be £7k better off and not (wait for it) - £50k worse off
The moral of this story is don't try and bully the wee man as the wee man always packs a bigger punch. Suckers!
What was a £7k debt owed to them now sits at £50k owed BY them.
Well done to all involved - happy reading!
....that's what we like to hear on AAD.
Comment